G.R. No. 241776 . March 23, 2022.
ROSETTE Y. LERIAS, PEDRO C. LLEVARES, JR., MA. LUCINA L. CALAPRE, JOSEPH A. DUARTE, AND CATALINO O. OLAYVAR, PETITIONERS, VS. THE HON. OMBUDSMAN AND THE FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

The Field Investigation Office (FIO) of the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) filed a complaint for malversation of public funds and violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 against petitioners and others from the Provincial Local Government Unit (PLGU) of Southern Leyte, the Department of Agriculture, and a sales manager of Philphos. The complaint alleged that in 2004, the petitioners conspired to defraud the government by using P3,250,000.00 to purchase fertilizers from Philphos without the required public bidding under R.A. No. 9184 , making it appear that Philphos was the exclusive manufacturer. The FIO claimed two other accredited suppliers existed in Southern Leyte. Petitioners countered that direct contracting with Philphos was legal as it was the exclusive distributor in Region 8 and beneficial to the government. The OMB found probable cause to charge petitioners Rosette Y. Lerias, Pedro C. Llevares, Jr., Ma. Lucina L. Calapre, Joseph A. Duarte, and Catalino O. Olayvar for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 , dismissing the malversation charge and absolving other respondents. Petitioners filed motions for reconsideration, arguing, among other things, that their right to a speedy disposition of cases was violated because the OMB took four years to resolve the case from its filing in 2013 and 11 years from the time the COA audit report came out. The OMB denied the motions. Hence, petitioners filed this Petition for Certiorari, claiming the OMB committed grave abuse of discretion in indicting them despite an unjustified and inordinate delay of 14 years from the 2004 transaction.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause against the petitioners despite the alleged inordinate delay in the disposition of the case, violating their constitutional right to a speedy disposition of cases.

RULING

No. The petition was dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners failed to prove that the State was solely responsible for an inordinate delay that prejudiced them. The right to a speedy disposition of cases is not automatically violated by the passage of time. The person claiming the delay must first prove that the delay was attributable to the State’s ineptness and was unreasonable. Only then does the burden shift to the State to justify the delay and show a lack of prejudice. The Court found no inordinate delay in this case. The period for determining delay starts from the filing of the complaint with the OMB in 2013, not from the 2004 transaction. The OMB resolved the complaint within four years, which period included the petitioners’ own motions for extension to file counter-affidavits. The petitioners did not assert their right to a speedy disposition during the preliminary investigation and only raised it after an adverse finding. Furthermore, they failed to demonstrate that the alleged delay was solely due to the OMB’s inefficiency or that it caused them specific prejudice. Thus, the OMB did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed Resolution and Order.